[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 114 (Monday, August 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             THE CRIME BILL

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the most apt comment one can make about 
President Clinton on the crime bill is: There he goes again. Instead of 
taking up the good faith offer of myself and other Republican leaders 
to meet and negotiate a truly bipartisan, truly tough crime bill, he is 
playing the same old inside-the-beltway partisan blame game. The people 
of Utah and across the Nation will not benefit from the President's 
partisan tactics.
  It is time for the news media to expose some myths in this crime 
debate.
  First, President Clinton has not exerted leadership on this issue. He 
has exalted rhetoric over leadership. He has never submitted a remotely 
comprehensive crime bill to Congress. Indeed, his administration sat 
largely on the sidelines during the Senate's consideration of a crime 
bill last year.
  Second, the Clinton administration is promoting the phony line that 
the crime bill emerging from conference had already received majority 
support in both Houses and that opposition to it is mere politics. In 
fact, the bill that I voted for and which passed the Senate 94 to 4 in 
November did not contain the $1.8 billion for the so-called Local 
Partnership Act, and open-ended social spending boondoggle which slaps 
an anticrime label on a liberal, 1960's-style Great Society Program. 
The money in this pork program can be spent on education to prevent 
crime, job programs to prevent crime, and drug treatment to prevent 
crime. What we need to prevent crime, however, is more support for 
local, State, and Federal law enforcement and more prison space.
  The Senate bill I supported last November did not have $900 million 
in yet another job training program. What we need in the fight against 
crime is not to spend this $900 million on yet more job training, but 
to spend it on building new prison space.
  The Senate bill I supported in November did not contain the $895 
million Model Intensive Grant Program, which would spend precious crime 
fighting resources on transportation, public facilities, and yet more 
job programs. The conference report contains all of these social 
spending boondoggles.
  The bill I supported in November did not provide for the release of 
as many as 10,000 or even 16,000 Federal convicts, many of whom are 
going to commit more crimes when they would otherwise be in Federal 
prison. The conference report supported by President Clinton provides 
for such early release. This is unconscionable. Yet, it has been 
ignored by the pundits.

  The bill I voted for in November contained numerous tough provisions 
dropped in conference. For example:
  Tough Federal penalties for violent juvenile gang offenses, the Dole-
Hatch-Brown provision--dropped.
  The Moseley-Braun-Hatch provision for mandatory prosecution for 
violent juveniles age 13 or older as adults in appropriate cases--
dropped.
  Tough mandatory minimum sentences for using a firearm in the 
commission of a crime, the D'Amato provision--dropped.
  Mandatory minimum sentences for selling drugs to minors or employing 
minors in a drug crime, the Gramm provision--dropped.
  Amending the rules of evidence to allow evidence of prior offenses of 
rape and child abuse in prosecutions for those offenses in appropriate 
cases, the Dole provision--dropped.
  Allowing the notification of communities that a convicted sexually 
violent predator has been released into their midst, the Gorton 
provision--dropped.
  Requiring mandatory restitution to victims of violent crime, the 
Nickles provision--dropped.
  HIV testing of accused rapists, the Hatch provision--dropped.
  Ensuring the swift removal of alien terrorists without disclosing 
national security secrets in the deportation process, the Smith-Simpson 
provision--dropped.
  Ensuring that criminal aliens are swiftly deported after they have 
served their sentences, the Simpson provision--dropped.
  The crime bill conference report, I might add, is not the same bill 
that emerged from the other body either. As one example, the bill sent 
to us by the other body contained $13.5 billion, at least ostensibly 
for prisons, compared to the conference report's $6.5 billion.
  So it is time for the new media to call this administration's bluff 
and set the record straight--this crime conference bill is not the same 
bill either House sent into conference.
  Let me turn to a third myth fostered by this administration and its 
congressional allies--that this bill contains billions for prisons. 
Nonsense. Not one dime in the bill the President supports must be spent 
on building one prison cell.

  The other side of the aisle claims to spend $8.3 billion on prisons. 
Yet, $1.8 billion of that funding is simply to reimburse States for 
costs associated with incarceration of criminal aliens--funding that 
will go overwhelmingly to only a handful of States in any event.
  The remaining $6.5 billion in so-called prison spending is in the 
misleadingly rugged-sounding program entitled ``Violent Offender 
Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Grants'' section. Yet, not one 
dime of this money has to be spent on the construction or operation of 
prisons. The pundits should read that section and stop repeating this 
administration's misleading rhetoric about it. I say it again, not one 
dime of the so-called prison provision of the bill supported by the 
President must be spent on prison construction or operation.
  Rather, the money can be spent on programs, including alternative 
confinement facilities and drug treatment, intended to free up existing 
prison space--not to build new prisons. These programs will ostensibly 
free up existing prison space through early release-type programs for 
some criminals, half-way houses for still other criminals, and similar 
alternatives to prison. This administration is hostile to a real 
buildup in new prison space. They do not really believe in new 
prisons--they believe in rehabilitation, job training, drug and sex 
offender treatment, and softer sanctions as alternatives to prisons. 
The American people know better: The best way to prevent crime is not 
to coddle criminals but lock them up for a long time.
  Indeed, the so-called prisons section of the conference report 
requires States, as a condition to receiving any of this so-called 
prison money, to implement a ``comprehensive correctional plan.'' The 
plan must include, among other things, ``diversion programs, 
particularly drug diversion programs * * * prisoner rehabilitation and 
treatment programs, prisoner work activities, and job skills 
programs.'' What do any of these things have to do with locking up 
violent criminals?
  In effect, in order for the States to qualify for the so-called 
prison grants, they have to spend much or all of it on a costly, 
liberal corrections scheme backed by the President. This is a shell 
game. And it is a waste of money that ought to be spent on the 
construction and operation of something this administration seems to 
feel is old-fashioned--bricks and mortar for prisons.
  Myth No. 4: This conference report contains tough truth-in-sentencing 
requirements. Supporters of this bill claim it conditions 40 percent of 
the so-called prison grant funding on State implementation of truth-in-
sentencing. The provision is a sham. State adoption of a determinate 
sentencing scheme will only apply to second-time violent offenders. 
Moreover, these grants are subject to the same condition I mentioned 
earlier--the State must implement a liberal corrections policy.
  Myth No. 5: The conference report contains a tough three strikes and 
you're out. It does not. The impact of any such provision is directly 
related to the scope of its qualifying convictions. The conference 
report's provision is far too narrow, affecting as few as 500 cases a 
year.

  The Senate-passed crime bill, on the other hand, contained a broad 
approach to dealing with recidivist, violent criminals. In fact, the 
Senate-passed bill provided mandatory life imprisonment for two-time 
losers who sell drugs to children, employ children in the drug trade, 
or who commit murder. But that was too tough for this administration, 
and it was dropped in conference. The Senate bill, which federalizes 
crimes committed with a firearm, would subject thousands of three-time 
violent offenders and drug traffickers to life imprisonment. But this 
was too tough for this administration, and it was dropped in 
conference.
  Myth No. 6: The crime conference report is going to put 100,000 new 
police officers on the street. In the spirit of bipartisanship, 
Republicans have supported spending the money the administration's own 
analysis says would result in putting all of these new police officers 
on the street. But, frankly, independent analysts scoff at the 
administration's claims.
  For example, consider the remarks of John Dilulio, professor of 
politics and public affairs at Princeton University, director of the 
Brookings Center for Public Management in Washington, DC, and self-
described card carrying Democrat. He said, on August 8,

       The bill calls for 100,000 new cops. But when you read the 
     relevant titles of the bill, what you discover is that that 
     really means about 20,000 fully funded positions. And if 
     you're stouthearted enough to look at this bill in light of 
     the relevant academic literature, you know that it takes 
     about 10 police officers to put the equivalent of one police 
     officer on the streets around the clock. This is factoring in 
     everything from sick leave and disabilities to vacations and 
     three shifts a day to desk work and so on. So that 20,000 
     funded positions becomes 2,000 around-the-clock cops. And 
     2,000 around-the-clock cops gets distributed over at least 
     200 jurisdictions for an average of about 10 cops per city.

  Indeed, Madam President, the irony of the other side of the aisle 
claiming that opposition to this conference report is political is 
this: President Clinton has treated this issue largely in a political 
way. He claims he will put 100,000 police officers on the street, which 
will sound good in 1996, but this bill will not produce anything close 
to that number of new police on the street by 1996 or 2006. He claims 
he backs the death penalty, but he apparently has cut a deal with death 
penalty opponents to implement unilaterally the concept of the so-
called Racial Justice Act, which will end the death penalty. He claims 
he backs a three-time loser provision, but endorses a very weak version 
of such a law. In order to satisfy the liberal social spending 
interests in his party, he has endorsed squandering of billions of 
dollars in scarce crime-fighting resources to be spent, instead, on 
liberal social spending pork.
  Madam President, again, I call upon President Clinton to meet with 
Republicans on this matter. We can get a good crime bill to his desk. 
But that bill must be a bipartisan bill, not one which merely tinkers 
with the conference report, and not one which only satisfies the 
liberal wing of his party.

                          ____________________